DUKE 
UNIVERSITY 


LIBRARY 


THE  POWER  TO  FORGIVE. 
A.  SERMON 

DELIVERED  BY  THE  LATE 

REV.  JOHN  A.  GRETTER. 

BEFORE  THE 

f 

PRESBYTERY  OF  ORANGE, 

AT  WASHINGTON,  N.  C, 
DECEMBER,  1849. 
PUBLISHED  BY  REQUEST  OF  THAT  BODY. 


PAYETTE  YILLE,  N.  C. : 
PRINTED  AT  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  OFFICE. 
1859. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


'  https://archive.org/details/sermondeliveredb43gret 


THE  F10WE3S  OOLLFfrnoN 


EXPLANATORY  STATEMENT. 


This  Sermon  was  originally  delivered  by  special  request  of  Orange  Presbytery, 
before  that  Body,  at  its  sessions  in  Washington,  X.  C,  December,  1849.  The  im- 
pression produced  on  the  minds  of  those  who  heard  it  on  that  occasion,  was  such  as 
to  create  a  desire  that  it  might  be  preserved  in  a  permanent  form  for  the  edification 
of  the  Church.  If  the  life  of  the  author  had  been  spared,  the  sermon  would,  doubt- 
less, have  been  prepared  for  the  press,  under  his  own  direction.  A  constant  succes- 
sion of  pastoral  and  pulpit  duties,  followed  by  a  protracted  illness,  and  closed  by 
-death  in  1853,  prevented  the  accomplishment  of  this  work,  in  the  lifetime  of  the  au- 
thor. The  desire  for  its  publication  was  by  no  means  extinguished  by  that  mournful 
event.  Ia  addition  to  the  reasons  previously  existing,  in  the  eloquence  of  the  ser- 
mon, its  profound  reasoning,  the  importance  of  the  doctrine,  and  its  special  adap- 
tation to  the  times,  a  new  motive  was  furnished  by  the  natural  and  earnest  desire 
which  the  author's  friends  felt  for  the  possession  of  some  memento  of  his  great  worth 
and  usefulness. 

The  memory  of  John  A.  Gretter,  is  precious  to  the  heart  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  North  Carolina.  In  every  relation  of  life,  as  Pastor,  as  Preacher,  as 
Counsellor  in  our  Ecclesiastical  Courts,  and  as  a  friend,  he  was  honored  and  beloved. 

By  a  singular  coincidence  in  the  place,  the  Manuscripts  of  the  Sermon  were  pre- 
sented by  Mrs.  Gretter  to  the  Presbytery  at  Washington,  November,  1858, 

The  following  minute  was  unanimously  adopted : 

"The  Committee  appointed  to  examine  a  Manuscript  Sermon  by  the  late  Rev. 
John  A.  Gretter,  on  the  "Power  to  Forgive,"  beg  leave  to  report  that  they  have 
examined  the  same,  and  find  a  good  deal  of  difficulty  in  reading  the  manuscript,  but 
have  learned  enough  of  the  Sermon  to  conclude  that  it  is  worth  the  publishing,  pro- 
vided it  can  be  done.  Therefore 

Resolved,  That  this  Manuscript  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Editors  of  the  North 
Carolina  Presbyterian  to  be  published  by  them  in  their  paper,  and  also  in  pamphlet 
form,  provided  they  can  do  the  author  justice  in  so  doing." 

The  publication  has  been  subject  to  a  brief  delay,  from  the  fact  that  the  sermon 
was  not  complete  in  any  one  manuscript,  and  the  Editors  found  it  necessary  to  com- 
pare and  compile  from  several.  They  have  taken  no  liberties  with  the  author's  views 
or  phraseology,  and  while  to  them  their  work  has  been  a  labor  of  love,  they  send 
forth  the  sermon  from  the  Press  with  the  prayer  that  its  perusal  may  be  greatly 
blessed  in  comforting  and  confirming  the  hearts  of  the  people  of  God. 


SERMON. 


Matt,  ix  :  6,  7. — "  But  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  Man  hath  power  on  earth 
to  forgive  sins,  (then  saith  He  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,)  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and 
go  unto  thine  house.    And  he  arose,  and  departed  to  his  house." 

Among  the  crowd  which  gathered  around  the  person  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  in  his  journey ings  in  the  land  of  his  birth,  the  sa- 
cred writers  frequently  make  mention  of  some  separated  from 
the  rest  by  their  bitterness  towards  him  and  his  doctrines.  These 
men,  wrapped  in  an  overweening  conceit  of  their  peculiar  devot- 
deness  to  God,  could  not  brook  the  thought  of  being  eclipsed  by 
the  superior  lustre  of  another  religious  teacher  as  unpretending 
in  his  manners  as  he  was  ardent  in  his  piety,  and  as  illustrious  in 
his  deeds  as  he  was  obscure  in  his  origin.  These  Pharisees, 
the  learned  Doctors  of  the  law,  (for  it  is  of  these  I  speak)  with  a 
jealous  eye,  watched  his  every  motion,  and  stood  ready  to  carp 
at  all  he  did,  and  wrest  all  he  said,  if  possible,  to  his  destruction. 
Neither  awed  by  his  power,  nor  attracted  by  his  wisdom,  nor 
subdued  by  his  beneficence,  each  successive  manifestation  of  his 
more  than  human  greatness,  only  goaded  them  on  to  fiercer  ha- 
tred and  more  shameless  opposition,  till  at  length  we  hear  them 
crying  around  the  cross  "  if  he  be  the  Son  of  God  let  him  come 
down."  Not  a  few  of  these  men  in  pursuit  of  their  victim  had 
assembled  at  Capernaum  and  might  have  been  seen  seated  qui- 
etly amid  the  despised  Galileans — when  a  palsied  man,  all  other 
mode  of  access  barred  by  the  pressure  of  the  crowd,  wTas  let 
down  by  his  friends  from  the  roof  of  the  house  immediately  at 
the  feet  of  Jesus.  xThis  was  a  spectacle  calculated  to  touch  eve- 
ry heart  in  the  vast  crowd.  Much  more  so  would  it  aftect  the 
compassionate  Jesus.  He  at  once  said  to  the  poor  paralytic — 
f'Son,  be  of  good  cheer,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee."  Language 


6 


like  this  sounded  strangely  in  the  ears  of  the  Doctors  of  the  law, 
who  said  in  their  hearts,  "  Who  is  this  that  speaketh  blasphe- 
mies ?  Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  alone  V  And  they  secretly 
charged  him  with  blasphemy.  To  convince  them  that  he  actu- 
ally possessed  the  power  which  he  pretended  to  exercise,  and 
that  their  accusation  was  accordingly  false,  Jesus  now  spoke 
again  to  the  palsied  man  bidding  him  take  up  his  bed  and  go  to 
his  house,  and  the  man  was  immediately  enabled  to  obey  the 
command. 

It  may  seem  a  little  remarkable,  that  our  Lord  should  have 
noticed  a  charge  brought  against  him,  in  this  way.  Though  of 
a  serious  nature,  it  was  entertained  only  in  the  bosoms  of  some 
of  his  hearers,  and  had  he  not  brought  it  to  light,  it  had  probably 
never  been  known,  save  to  those  who  preferred  it.  Yet  it  is  ob- 
vious that  according  to  the  views  of  these  men,  Jesus  had  laid 
himself  open  to  such  a  charge.  In  professedly  exercising  the 
authority  to  forgive  sins  he  had  assumed  a  prerogative  of  the 
Godhead — being  a  man,  he  had  made  himself  equal  with  God. 
Besides,  the  secrecy  of  the  accusation  afforded  him  a  fair  oppor- 
tunity of  rectifying  their  false  views  relative  to  his  true  charac- 
ter. He  read  their  very  thoughts  and  thus  proved  himself  to 
them,  the  great  searcher  of  hearts  and  trier  of  the  reins  of  the 
children  of  men.  And  yet  farther,  while  exposing  to  public  gaze 
the  sentiments  of  these  men  that  he  might  show  their  falsity,  he 
was  at  the  same  moment  extending  the  hand  of  mercy  to  the 
wretched  man  before  him  and  rewarding  the  faith  of  friends  so 
clearly  exhibited  in  their  efforts  to  bring  the  object  of  their  so- 
licitude in  reach  of  his  healing  influence.  Thus  our  Lord  in  vin- 
dicating himself  from  this  charge  gave  to  his  hearers  more  ex- 
alted views  of  his  character,  confounded  his  enemies  by  a  pecu- 
liar manifestation  of  his  Godhead,  and  conferred  a  rich  boon  on 
a  poor  sinner  who  had  sought  his  aid.  It  was  worthy  of  him 
thus  to  notice  it. 

Again,  we  must  not  overlook  the  circumstance  on  which  this 
accusation  was  founded.  This  was  the  language  of  Jesus  ad- 
dressed to  the  sick  man,  "Son,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee."  The 
expression  seems  to  be  rather  ambiguous.  It  may  mean  either 
"thy  sins  are  forgiven,"  or  "let  thy  sins  be  forgiven,"  i.  e.  the 
verb  may  be  either  in  the  indicative  or  imperative  mood.  In 


the  one  case  the  phrase  would  be  a  simple  declaration  that  his 
sins  were  forgiven — so  Campbell  understands  it,  and  substitutes 
are  for  he  in  his  translation.  In  the  other  it  would  be  the  effica- 
cious word  which  secures  forgiveness,  manifesting  the  will  of 
him  who  has  the  power  to  forgive — analogous  to  the  word  which 
said,  "  Let  there  be  light  and  there  was  light."  Nor  does  the 
word  in  the  original  remove  the  ambiguity ;  it  is  a  particular 
form  of  the  verb  which  has  given  some  difficulty  to  grammarians. 
Yater  says  it  is  the  perfect  pass.,  a  form  unknown  to  the  Greeks. 
Bretschneider  regard  sit  as  an  Ionic  form  for  2  Aor.  middle,  sub] . 

In  the  former  it  means  "thy  sins  are"  or  "have  been  forgiv- 
en ;"  in  the  latter  "  let  them  be"  &c.  We  find,  however,  that 
the  Pharisees  understood  him  as  actually  forgiving  sins,  for  they 
said  in  their  hearts,  "  Why  doth  this  man  thus  speak  blasphe- 
mies ?  Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only  ?"  (Mark  ii :  7.) 
This,  however,  does  not  prove  that  the  expression  used  by  our 
Lord  was  authoritative,  but  it  does  prove  that  an  unconditional 
declaration  of  forgiveness  is,  so  far  as  the  individual  himself  who 
makes  it  is  concerned,  a  daring  invasion  of  the  divine  preroga- 
tive, and  in  all  respects  to  his  case,  tantamount  to  an  authorita 
tive  forgiveness.  So  thought  the  Pharisees  and  our  Lord  en- 
dorsed their  opinion. 

The  course  here  pursued  by  our  Lord  in  view  of  the  ura- 
bra^e  taken  by  the  Pharisees  at  his  conduct  is  conclusive  that 
he  was  willing  at  any  rate  to  be  regarded  as  having  claimed  the 
power  to  forgive.  It  follows  then,  in  whichever  way  these  words 
of  our  Lord  be  rendered  that  an  unconditional  declaration  of 
2)ardon  to  an  individual  is  an  offence  as  heinous  as  that  of  claim 
ing  the  full  authority  to  forgive.  Once  more,  we  invite  atten- 
tion to  the  manner  in  which  Jesus  vindicated  himself  from  the 
accusation  of  the  Pharisees.  "  But  that  ye  may  know  that  the 
Son  of  Man  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins  (then  saith  he 
to  the  sick  of  the  palsy,)  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed  and  go  unto 
thine  house.  And  he  arose  and  departed  to  his  house."  Than 
this,  we  can  conceive  no  surer  proof  of  unlimited  power.  The 
word  which  speaks,  and  it  stands  fast,  is  not  only  a  word  of  pow- 
er, but  it  is  the  word  of  the  Creator.  The  being,  between  whose 
declared  will,  and  the  effect  produced,  there  is  no  intermediate 
circumstance,  and  no  intervening  conceivable  time,  is  the  Be- 
ing, who  is  girded  with  Omnipotence. 


8 


He  who  wills  and  it  is  done ;  whose  fiat  instantly  secures  the 
result  aimed  at,  is  and  must  be  to  our  conceptions  the  Lord  God 
Almighty.  There  is  no  more  certain  indication  of  Almightiness 
than  this.  There  may  be  brighter  and  more  dazzling  corusca- 
tions of  this  glorious  perfection  in  yon  world  of  glory,  which  sin 
has  never  darkened  ;  there  may  be  here  on  earth  more  overpow- 
ering exhibitions,  but  there  are  kone  which  can  more  surely  cer- 
tify us  of  the  presence  of  the  arm  which  none  can  resist.  He 
then  who  says  to  a  paralytic,  "  Arise  and  take  up  thy  bed  and 
go  to  thine  house,"  when  instantly  the  man  in  view  of  all  around 
arises  and  walks ;  this  one,  man  though  he  seem  to  be  and 
though  he  actually  be,  must  at  the  same  time  be  clothed  with 
the  power  of  doing  whatever  he  pleaseth.  If  this  be  not  a  man- 
ifestation of  Omnipotence,  there  can  none  be  given  to  us  :  then 
is  all  distinction  between  the  Infinite  and  finite  annihilated  to 
our  view.  Let  us  now  return  to  the  history.  It  is  admitted  on 
all  hands  that  Jesus  on  this  occasion  gave  evidence  that  he  had 
power  to  forgive  sins  on  earth.  "  Here  was  an  ocular  demonstra- 
tion" says  Dr.  Campbell,  "  of  the  power  with  which  the  order  was 
accompanied,  and  therefore  was  entirely  fit  for  serving  as  evi- 
dence that  the  other  expression  he  had  used,  "thy  sins  be  for- 
given thee"  was  not  vain  words,  but  attended  with  the  like  divine 
energy,  though  from  its  nature,  not  discernible  like  the  other  by 
its  consequences.  To  say  the  one  with  effect,  where  effect  was 
visible,  is  a  proof  that  the  other  was  said  also  with  effect,  though 
the  effect  itself  was  invisible."  Again  it  will  not  be  denied  that 
Jesus  here  also  showed  himself  to  be  one  with  the  Father,  equal 
in  power  and  glory.  If  now  it  be  farther  taken  into  considera- 
tion that  this  manifestation  of  divine  glory  so  clearly  evidencing 
our  Lord  to  be  at  the  same  time  God  and  to  have  power  to  forgive 
sins  on  earth,  was  given  to  clear  himself  in  the  eyes  of  the  Phar- 
isees, who  had  said  that  none  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only, — 
the  conclusion  is  almost  irresistible,  that  Jesus  meant  to  sanction 
the  truth  of  the  doctrine  on  which  these  men  had  proceeded.  In 
other  words,  Jesus  here  showed  himself  to  be  God.  For  what 
purpose  ?  That  he  might  prove  he  had  power  to  forgive  sins  on 
earth.  Was  the  proof  sufficient?  It  is  not  denied.  Was  it  ne- 
cessary ?  Would  not  an  evidence  short  of  this  have  answered 
every  purpose  ?    Was  it  essential  to  prove  his  Godhead  to  con- 


9 


vince  his  hearers  that  he  had  made  no  false  pretensions  ?  To  this 
we  reply  that  is  was  certainly  necessary,  so  long  as  the  Phari- 
sees maintained  the  views  they  then  held — that  none^but  God 
can  forgive  sins.  Were  they  in  error  on  this  point  ?  The  pre- 
sumption is,  they  were  not,  otherwise  Jesus  would  have"correct- 
ed  that  error.  All  correct  apprehensions  of  his  character  forbid 
the  belief  that  our  Lord  would  have  thus  manifested  his  glory, 
if  the  same  end  could  have  been  reached  without  it,  and  that 
in  the  exercise  of  this  discretionary  power,  he  declares  his  right- 
eousness that  he  may  be  just,  and  the  jusrin'er  of  him  which  be- 
lieveth  in  Jesus.  These  are  truths  written  so  legibly  and  so  fre- 
quently in  the  glorious  gospel  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  so  un- 
speakably precious  to  poor  sinners,  that  we  may  for  the  present 
assume  them  as  undeniable  and  not  stop  to  establish  them.  But 
that  Godronly  can  forgive  sins — -that  the  power  of  forgiveness  is. 
not  only  inherent  in  him,  but  reserved  entirely  in  his  own  hands, 
is  a  point  which  some  deny  and  we  affirm.  This  point  will- 
form  the  subject  of  the  present  discussion. 

However  clear  may  be  the  fact  that  powers  of  the  highest  of- 
fices may  be  and  continually  are  delegated  to  others — yet  it  is 
obvious  that  there  must  be  a  limit  somewhere — there  must  be 
some  prerogative  peculiar  to  the  Sovereign  and  reserved  in  his- 
own  hands,  which  cannot  be  transferred — otherwise  all  distinc- 
tion between  the  supreme  and  inferior  power  is  confounded. 

Lord  Bacon  in  some  excellent  remarks  on  this  subject,  has 
pointed  out  this  limit,  as  it  seems  to  us,  in  the  clearest  manner. 
He  regards  the  prerogative  in  two  distinct  branches.  In  the  one 
the  King's  pleasure  is  reserved  in  the  Sovereign's  hands  to  be  ex- 
ercised in  each  case  according  to  his  personal  and  private  discre- 
tion. According  to  this  distinction  it  is  obvious  not  only  that 
there  is  a  prerogative  which  cannot  possibly  be  transferred,  but 
the  reason  why  is  equally  manifest.  A  prerogative  entirely 
controlled  in  every  case  by  the  private  pleasure  of  the  sovereigns 
must  from  its  very  nature  be  incommunicable,  because,  1st.  the- 
private  pleasure  of  no  man  can  become  that  of  another,  and  2nd,, 
because  if  it  were  possible,  such  a  transfer  invests  a  subject  with 
a  power  to  rule  his  fellow  subjects  according  to  his  own  pleasure,, 
i.  e.  makes  him  most  absolute  sovereign. 

These  remarks  apply  with  much  more  force  and  truth  to-  the 


10 


Jehovah  of  the  Scriptures,  the  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of 
lords — the  Blessed  and  only  Potentate — doing  his  will  in  the 
armies  of  heaven  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth.  It 
were  preposterous  to  suppose  that  in  a  Sovereign  wielding  such 
■a  sceptre,  there  were  no  powers  in  themselves  inalienable  or  none 
which  a  creature  is  totally  unable  to  wield.  Besides,  a  divine  pre- 
rogative in  some  of  its  branches  may  require  for  its  execution, 
the  presence  of  some  of  the  distinguishing  attributes  of  the 
Godhead,  and  cannot  accordingly  be  delegated  to  another 
without  confounding  the  distinctions  between  the  Infinite  and 
the  finite — the  Creator  and  the  creature.  The  exercise  of 
the  power  may  involve  the  presence  of  attributes,  the  transfer- 
rence  of  which  is  the  investiture  of  the  being  to  whom  they 
are  transferred  with  the  distinguishing  excellency  of  the  great 
God.  And  if  these  distinctive  perfections  may  be  bestowed  on 
another  who  is  not  God,  how  can  the  Holy  One  manifest  him- 
self to  his  creatures  so  as  to  be  known  from  and  above  them  all? 

The  possession  of  the  divine  excellency  is  to  us  the  evidence 
of  his  presence  and  agency;  the  manifestation  of  those  attri- 
butes which  constitute  the  divine  excellency  must  then  prove 
that  the  Being  in  whom  they  shone  forth  is  God  and  not  another. 
Omnipotence,  for  example,  belongs  to  God  alone.  He  who  can 
do  whatever  he  pleaseth  in  heaven  or  on  earth,  for  whom  no- 
thing is  too  hard,  he  can  be  none  other  than  the  Lofty  One,  who 
inhabits  the  praises  of  eternity.  This  is  an  attribute,  whose  pre- 
sence defines  to  our  faith  the  Being  who  made  and  upholds  us, 
and  to  whom  we  are  bound  to  render  our  highest  services.  Again : 
To  search  the  heart  and  try  the  reins  of  men  is  another  perfec- 
tion of  the  Deity.  "The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things  and 
desperately  wicked  :  who  can  know  it  ?  I  the  Lord,  search  the 
heart,  I  try  the  reins,  even  to  give  every  man  according  to  his 
ways,  and  according  to  the  fruit  of  his  doings."  If  then  the 
Scriptures  are  our  rule  in  faith  and  practice,  he  who  discerns  the 
thoughts  and  intents  of  my  heart  is  Jehovah,  and  as  often  as 
he  does  this,  he  calls  me  to  own  and  acknowledge  him  as  the 
only  true  God.  These  and  others  which  might  be  mentioned  are, 
what  have  been  called  by  an  old  divine,  so  many  royalties  of  the 
divine  nature — such  as  no  creature  can  share  in.  He  who  is 
clothed  with  these  is  He,  whom  we  need  no':  fear  to  worship  as 


1.1 


the  Lord  God.  Though  to  the  eye  he  may  seem  to  be  man,  yet 
if  he  is  girded  with  Omnipotence,  infinite  in  knowledge  &c, 
he  is  our  Immanuel,  God  in  the  flesh.  Such  indeed  was  Je- 
sus of  Nazareth.  He  was  a  man  in  outward  appearance. 
He  was  encompassed  with  all  the  infirmities  of  our  nature. 
And  when  he  claimed  to  be  God,  the  thought  seemed  al- 
most incredible.  Strange  indeed  was  it  that  one  like  our- 
selves shouM  claim  to  be  the  God  who  made  us.  Yet  he 
proved  himself  to  be  all  he  claimed  to  be — he  showed  his  fear- 
less majesty  in  the  displays  of  the  distinguishing  perfections 
of  the  Godhead  he  put  foith.  Thus  we  know  hiin  to  be  our  God 
and  Saviour.  The  indwelling  of  the  divine  excellency  leaves 
no  doubt  on  this  point.  "The  word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt 
among  us"  says  John,  "and  we  beheld  his  glory,  as  the  glory  of 
the  only  begotten  Son  of  God."  We  see  then  that  a  divine  pre- 
rogative may  be  limited  in  reference  to  its  exercise  by  any  other, 
both  from  its  nature  and  its  requiring  in  its  execution  the  pre- 
sence of  such  attributes  as  cannot  be  committed  without  break- 
ing down  the  enclosure  which  separates  the  Great  Tam  from  the 
creatures  of  his  hands.  And  the  question  we  now  wish  to  settle 
is  whether  the  power  to  forgive  sins  is  such  a  prerogative. 

In  order  to  reach  a  satisfactory  answer  to  this  inquiry,  let  us 
for  a  few  moments  consider  what  we  are  to  understand  by  the 
forgivness  of  sins.  This  will  prepare  the  way  for  our  entrance 
on  another  enquiry :  what  is  implied  in  the  power  to  forgive  ? 
from  which  it  will  be  comparatively  easy  to  return  a  categorical 
reply  to  our  main  question. 

1.  "What  is  forgiveness  of  sins? 

"  Sin  is  any  want  of  conformity  unto  or  transgression  of  the 
law  of  God."  It  accordingly  implies  a  moral  agent,  a  law,  and 
a  lawgiver.  It  may  therefore  be  regarded  in  these  three  differ- 
ent relations,  in  each  of  which  it  presents  a  different  and  import- 
ant aspect.  Considered  simply  in  reference  to  the  agent,  the 
sins  of  an  individual  are  nothing  more  than  his  thoughts,  feel- 
ings, words,  and  deeds,  and  form  but  just  so  many  items  or  facts 
in  the  records  of  his  history,  or  to  use  the  language  of  Scripture 
in  "  the  Book  of  God's  remembrance."  Here  they  are  "  written 
with  a  pen  of  iron  and  with  the  point  of  a  diamond" — here  they 
must  ever  preserve  their  place,  and  are  of  course  imperishable 
and  indestructible.    In  relation  to  the  law,  the  standard  of  right 


12 


and  wrong,  sin  is  a  deflection  from  the  mark  it  sets  up,  a  devia- 
tion from  the  path  it  defines.  This  constitutes  its  sinfulness  and 
gives  rise  to  its  ill  desert.  The  law  of  God  being  holy  and  just 
and  good,  every  violation  of  its  injunctions  or  departure  from 
its  requisitions  must  be  evil  in  itself,  and  attach  moral  turpitude 
to  him  who  is  chargeable  with  such  violation.  This  law  being 
further  inflexible  and  immutable  in  its  demands,  this  feature  must 
be  an  inseparable  adjunct  of  sin.  The  sinner  then  deserves  to 
perish,  aud  will  forever  deserve  to  perish,  if  dealt  with  accord- 
ing to  his  personal  deserts.  Again,  the  Lawgiver,  being  the  vin- 
dicator and  guardian  of  law,  and  the  law  binding  to  obedience 
and  in  default  thereof  to  punishment,  there  arises  another  im- 
portant aspect  of  sin,  as  laying  the  individual  chargeable  with  it, 
under  obligations  to  suffer  at  the  hands  of  the  Lawgiver.  In 
this  aspect  sin  is  a  debt  of  suffering  which  the  sinner  owes  God, 
as  the  avenger  of  the  claims  of  his  law.  So  our  Lord  has  taught 
us  to  regard  it  in  the  prayer  he  has  given  us  as  the  model  to 
which  our  petitions  should  be  conformed.  "Forgive  us  our 
debts,  as  we  forgive  our  debtors."  This  debt,  however,  is  sim- 
ply a  legal  claim,  and  if  that  claim  can  be  otherwise  satisfied 
than  by  the  personal  suffering  of  the  sinner,  it  is  obvious  that 
this  obligation  will  no  more  remain.  This  obligation  to  suffer- 
ing arising  out  of  sin,  called  in  technical  language  guilt,  is  a 
feature,  though  not  inseparable  from  it. 

Thus  we  see  there  are  three  views  of  sin  distinguishable  and 
distinct  from  each  other,  viz  :  the  act,  its  sinfulness  and  its  guilt, 
or  the  liability  to  suffer  which  it  induces  in  the  agent,  and  of 
these  only  one  can  be  separated  from  it.  But  as  we  are  anxious 
to  be  fully  understood,  we  will  illustrate  what  has  been  said  by 
an  example  taken  from  human  law.  We  will  suppose  that  a 
man  having  killed  another,  is  arraigned  on  the  charge  of  mur- 
der. The  first  inquiry  will  be  into  the  fact.  Did  he  commit 
the  act?  Did  he  kill  the  individual  supposed?  This  is  a  pre- 
liminary step  which  cannot  be  dispensed  with,  and  brings  the 
crime  before  the  view  of  all  concerned,  simply  as  a  deed  or  act 
on  his  part.  This,  however,  being  settled  and  the  deed  proved 
to  have  been  committed  by  him,  it  does  not  necessarily  folio  v 
that  he  is  a  murderer,  or  in  other  words  that  he  is  criminal. 
This  point  requires  a  separate  investigation  and  is  to  be  decided 


n 


by  the  voice  of  the  law.  He  is  to  be  brought,  as  it  were,  along 
side  the  law  and  viewed  in  the  light  which  it  sheds  upon  him. 
If  then,  though  a  competent  number  of  witnesses  shall  have  de- 
clared that  he  committed  the  act,  it  shall  be  seen  that  he  did  it 
in  self-defence  or  accidentally,  the  law  attaches  no  criminality  to 
the  deed,  and  the  man  is  declared  innocent,  he  has  not  violated 
the  law.  Supposing  however,  he  has  killed  his  neighbor  with 
malice  aforethought,  and  thus  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  deserves  to 
suffer,  there  is  yet  another  step  to  be  taken.  Sentence  must  be 
pronounced  by  him,  who  appears  as  the  guardian  and  upholder  of 
the  law.  This  sentence  is  but  the  authoritative  voice  of  the  law 
fastening  on  the  head  of  the  criminal  the  obligation  of  punish- 
ment. He  is  liable  to  death.  But  this  liability  to  suffer — a  le- 
gal obligation  to  punishment — may  be  removed  by  the  interposi- 
tion of  the  executive  or  monarch.  In  the  exercise  of  his  su- 
preme power,  he  may  put  forth  his  arm  between  the  law  and 
the  head  of  the  criminal  and  set  aside  this  obligation.  The  man 
then,  though  he  killed  his  neighbor,  and  in  so  doing  violated  the 
law  and  was  exposed  to  punishment,  goes  unpunished.  JSTo  one 
can  molest  him.  In  this  process  we  see  three  different  steps — 
each  one  bringing  the  crime  into  different  relations  and  conse- 
quently presenting  it  in  different  aspects  as  a  deed,  its  crimi- 
nality and  the  obligation  to  punishment.  The  first  two  are 
necessary  to  constitute  it  a  crime,  and  in  this  light  cannot 
be  separated  from  it — the  last  may  or  may  not  abide  in  con- 
nection with  it  even  as  a  crime.  Who  can  doubt  that  the  mat- 
ter of  Uriah  the  Hittiteis  truly  as  blameworthy,  as  base  now, 
as  it  was  when  Israel's  king  under  the  lashes  of  an  awakened 
conscience  cried  out  in  anguish,  "  Deliver  me,  O  God  from  blood 
guiltiness?"  Who  doubts  that  it  will  be  as  true,  and  as  vile  in 
all  the  rolling  ages  of  eternity,  and  that  David  will  never  be  able 
to  stand  before  the  throne  of  God  on  the  ground  of  his  personal 
deserts  ?  Yet  David's  blood  guiltiness  has  been  removed  and 
Uriah's  murderer  lives — he  lives  in  triumph  and  glory. 

Let  this  illustration  suffice  to  show,  that  there  is  one  and  only 
one  element  of  sin,  which  is  capable  of  being  separated  from  it, 
and  this  is  its  guilt.  This,  we  think,  must  appear  obvious  to  all 
on  reflection.  In  reference  to  sins  which  are  registered  among 
•the  deeds  which  are  past,  no  one  «an  suppose  that  they  shall 


14 


ever  be  blotted  out.  They  must  forever  abide  in  the  presence* 
of  Him,  with  whom  there  is  no  past.  Nor  can  we  for  a  moment 
believe  that  their  sinfulness  will  be  separated  from  them,  for  this 
is  an  essential  element  of  their  nature  as  sins.  Take  the  sinful- 
ness out  and  they  are  no  more  sins.  Unless  then  the  lapse  of 
ages  shall  make  that  which  was  once  sinful  no  longer  so — or 
unless  the  Law  of  God  shall  be  changed — then  this  element  must 
abide.  There  remains  then  as  we  have  seen  only  the  obligation 
to  suffer  which  sin  fastens  on  the  agent,  which  can  be  removed. 
The  taking  this  obligation  to  punishment  off  from  the  head  of 
the  sinner,  or  the  removal  of  his  guilt,  in  consequence  of  which 
under  the  government  of  God,  no  punishment,  though  deserved, 
will  or  can  follow,  is  what  we  mean  by  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 
This  essential  view  of  forgiveness  is  too  frequently  presented  in 
the  Scriptures  to  escape  the  notice  of  any  who  read  them  under- 
standingly.  Certainly  no  idea  was  more  familiar  to  the  Jew& 
than  that  of  the  transference  of  his  obligation  to  suffer  in  con- 
sequence of  sin,  to  the  head  of  a  victim,  which  because  of  this 
transference  suffered  in  his  place.  When  he  brought  his  victim 
to  the  altar,  he  was  required  to  lay  his  hands  on  its  head  and 
confess  his  sins,  then  having  slain  the  victim — the  animal  suf- 
fered in  his  place — he  went  away  guiltless.  Atonement  was 
made  for  him,  his  sin  was  forgiveu.  These  victims  prefigured 
"  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,'7 
and  according  to  the  peculiar  polity  of  the  Jews,  according  to 
which  every  offence  incurred  the  penalty  of  death,  were  accepted 
as  substitutes  in  the  place  of  the  offenders.  The  idea  however 
of  cancelling  guilt  was  prominent  in  their  minds  in  all  aspects. 
Laying  the  hands  on  the  head  of  the  animal,  confessing  sins  and 
then,  slaying  the  victim,  were  all  significant  of  a  passing  over  .of 
something  on  the  part  of  the  offender  from  him  to  an  innocent 
creature,  in  consequence  of  which  that  creature  must  die.  That 
something  which  is  thus  transferred,  is  that  which  renders  it 
proper  in  the  eye  ot  the  law,  that  the  innocent  should  suffer 
which  is  guilt.  This  being  put  on  the  head  of  another,  we  see 
at  once  why  it  should  die  according  to  law.  Now  according  to 
the  method  of  salvation  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  this  obliga- 
tion to  suffering  is  not  removed  from  the  sinner  by  a  sovereign 
act  setting  aside  the  claims  of  the  law — but  by  a  judicial  act 


13 


Upholding  its  utmost  rigors  by  declaring  it  to  be  fully  satisfied 
in  his  case.  This  is  the  peculiarity  of  the  scheme  of  redemption. 
This  is  its  exceeding  glory.  The  sinner  is  not  simply  pardoned, 
he  is  justified — pronounced  to  be  just  in  the  eye  of  the  law. 
The  law  is  not  disregarded,  but  its  honor  vindicated  and  magni- 
fied. AH  its  claims  are  acknowledged  and  satisfied,  and  there- 
fore no  more  rest  on  the  sinner.  And  the  Lawgiver  himself 
stands  forth  to  view  as  the  just,  yet  the  justifier  of  the  ungodly. 
All  this  however  presupposes  a  sufficient  satisfaction  made  to  the 
law  for  sinners,  which  in  each  case  of  forgiveness  is  reckoned  to 
the  individual.  In  consequence  of  this  imputation  of  a  righte- 
ousness to  him,  the  sinner  himself  becomes  righteous  and  there 
is  no  more  condemnation  to  him.  His  sins  are  covered  and  can 
no  more  rise  up  against  him.  God  has  bestowed  upon  him  the 
righteousness  of  his  Sou  and  the  gift  of  faith  whereby  he  has  re- 
ceived this  righteousness.  "  Blessed  is  he,"  says  David,  "  whose 
trangression  is  forgiven,  whose  sin  is  covered.  Blessed  is  the 
man  to  whom  the  Lord  imputeth  not  iniquity,  and  in  whose 
spirit  there  is  no  guile.*'  Paul  tells  us  that  David  is  here  de- 
scribing the  blessedness  of  the  man  to  whom  God  imputeth  right- 
eousness without  works.  Thus  we  are  taught  that  transgression 
when  forgiven  is  covered  and  no  more  imputed — and  it  is  cover- 
ed by  a  righteousness  without  works  on  the  part  of  the  sinner, 
a  righteousness  which  God  imputes  to  him.  It  is  important 
here  to  observe  that  in  this  procedure  God  has  done  two  things 
for  the  pardoned  sinner.  He  has  officially  declared  him  to  be 
righteous  and  free  from  all  demands  of  the  law.  He  has  also 
reckoned  to  him  a  righteousness  which  is  not  his  own  by  works 
but  which  lias  become  bis  through  the  faith  of  Jesus.  In  the 
one  of  these  God  has  proceeded  on  his  own  previous  act,  i.  e.  in 
pronouncing  the  sinner  just — he  has  done  so  because  of  the  pre- 
vious imputation  to  him  of  the  righteousness  set  forth  in  the 
Gospel — the  full  satisfaction  made  to  the  law  in  the  person  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

Such  we  believe  to  be  the  scriptural  view  of  forgiveness.  Let 
us  now  attentively  consider  it  for  a  few  moments — that  we  may 
discern  the  nature  of  the  act  itself.    I  observe  then, 

1.  Forgiveness  is  an  act  of  supremacy.  As  has  been  already 
mentioned,  there  are  in  each  act  of  forgiveness  two  acts  implied; 


16 


separate  from  each  other,  because  in  each  God' appears  in  a  dif~- 
ferent  capacity,  yet  both  concurring,  and  necessary  to  the  same 
result.  In  the  one,  God  shows  himself  the  judge  giving  utter- 
ance to  the  declaration  of  the  law ;  in  the  other,  he  proceeds 
as  a  sovereign  conferring  the  most  precious  gift  on  an  undeserv- 
ing wretch.  But  for  this  gift  instead  of  justifying  the  sinner, 
the  judge  would  have  demanded  the  awful  sentence  of  the  law 
— everlasting  death  as  abiding  upon  him.  Thus  by  an  act  in  his 
sovereign  capacity,  he  reverses  what  he  would  have  done  in  the 
other.  He  turns  the  sentence  of  the  law  away  from  the  poor 
wretch  and  fastens  its  claims  upon  another.  This  is  most  clearly 
the  exercise  of  a  prerogative  above  law.  For  why  does  not  the  law 
still  maintain  its  claims,  and  demand  the  punishment  of  the  sin- 
ner? He  has  violated  its  precepts.  He  has  incurred  its  penal- 
ty. Its  condemnatory  voice  was  lifted  up  against  him,  and  con- 
science echoed  back  that  voice.  But  suddenly  all  is  changed  ; 
there  is  now  no  more  condemnation.  The  Judge  whose  duty  it 
is  to  vindicate  the  law  and  enforce  its  sanctions,  pronounces  sen- 
tence of  acquittal  and  acceptance.  Why  is  this  ?  Because  of 
an  act  which  has  not  set  aside  the  claims  of  the  law,  but  has 
fixed  them  on  another,  in  whom  they  were  all  satisfied.  This 
then,  though  not  against  law,  nor  regardless  of  law,  is  plainly 
an  act  above  law.  It  is  the  highest  act  of  government.  We 
can  conceive  of  no  higher  stretch  of  dominion  ;  it  is  an  act  of 
supremacy. 

"The  law  binds  first  to  obedience  and  in  neglect  of  it  to  pun- 
ishment. Not  only  the  lusts  that  break  forth  are  evidence  of,  but 
inward  inclinations  contrary  to  the  law  are,  sin.  From  hence  re- 
sults a  guilt  upon  every  sinner,  which  includes  the  imputation 
of  the  fault  and  obligation  to  punishment. 

The  forgiveness  of  sins  contains  the  obligation  of  their  guilt 
and  freedom  from  the  deserved  destruction  consequent  to  it.  This 
is  expressed  by  various  terms  in  Scripture.  The  '  not  imputing 
sin'  is  borrowed  from  the  accounts  of  servants  with  their  masters, 
and  implies  the  account  we  are  obliged  to  render  the  supreme 
Lord  for  all  his  benefits  which  we  have  so  wretchedly  misim- 
proved  ;  he  might  righteously  exact  of  us  ten  thousand  talents 
aB  due  to  him,  but  he  is  graciously  pleased  to  cross  the  book 
and  freely  to  discharge  us.    '  The  purging  from  sin'  implies  it  is 


17 


very  odious  and  offensive  in  God's  eyes,  and  has  a  special  re- 
spect to  the  expiatory  sacrifices,of  which  it  is  said,  that  "  with- 
out blood  there  was  no  remission." 

It  is  the  high  prerogative  of  God  to  pardon  sin.  His  author- 
ity made  the  law,  and  gives  life  and  vigor  to  it,  therefore  he  can 
remit  the  punishment  of  the  offender. 

This  royal  supremacy  is  more  conspicuous  in  the  exercise  of 
mercy  towards  repenting  sinners,  than  in  the  acts  of  justice  up- 
on obstinate  offenders.  As  a  king  is  more  a  king  by  pardoning 
humble  suppliants  by  the  operation  of  his  sceptre,  than  in  sub- 
duing rebels  by  the  power  of  the  sword,  for  in  acts  of  grace  he 
is  above  the  law,  and  overrules  its  rigor,  in  acts  of  vengeance,  he 
is  only  superior  to  his  enemies  *  *  *  It  is  the  peculiar  prerogative 
of  God  to  pardon  sin,  for  it  is1  an  act  of  empire.  The  judicial 
power  to  pardon  is  a  flower  inseparable  from  the  crown,  for  it 
is  founded  in  a  superiority  to  the  law,  therefore  inconsistent  with 
any  depending  authority.  The  power  to  pardon  is  an  efflux  of 
supremacy  and  incommunicable  to  the  subject.  A  prince  that 
invests  another  with  absolute  power  to  pardon,  must  either  re- 
linquish his  sovereignty,  or  take  an  associate  to  share  it.  It  is 
not  presumable  that  the  wise  God  should  invest  men  with  that 
authority  which  they  are  utterly  incapable  of  exercising. 

Grace  is  exclusive  of  all  merit  and  dignity  in  the  subject,  and 
of  all  obligation  in  the  person  that  shows  it. 

Repentance  in  order  of  nature  is  before  pardon,  but  they  are 
inseparably  joined  in  the  same  point  of  time.  David  in  Psalm 
xxxii  is  an  instance. 

The  repenting  sinner  who  is  under  the  strong  conviction  of 
his  guilt,  and  his  being  always  obnoxious  to  the  judgment  of 
God  and  eternal  misery,  the  consequences  of  it,  values  the 
favor  of  God  as  the  most  sovereign  good,  and  accounts  his  dis- 
pleasure as  the  supreme  evil.  Repentance  inspires  flaming  af- 
fections, in  our  prayers  and  praises  for  pardon.  The  sinner  is  ob- 
liged to  suffer  the  punishment  of  his  evil  deeds  in  his  own  person,, 
therefore  it  is  clear,  that  the  punishment  cannot  be  transferred  to- 
another  without  the  allowance  of  the  sovereign,  who  is  the  patron, 
of  the  rights  of  justice.  There  is  a  judicial  exchange  of  persons- 
between  Christ  and  believers,  their  guilt  is  transferred  to  him 
and  his  righteousness  is  imputed  to  them." — Bates, 


IS 


2.  Each  act  of  forgiveness  is  a  discretionary  act  of  supremacy. 
"  God  is  merciful  and  gracious,  slow  to  anger  and  plenteous  in 

"mercy,"  yet,  though  forgiveness  flows  from  his  gracious  nature  it 
•does  not  follow  that  he  will  pardon  every  one.  For  he  saith  to 
Moses,  "  I  will  be  gracious  to  whom  I  will  be  gracious  and  will 
show  mercy  on  whom  I  will  show  mercy."  So  Paul — "  Having 
predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of  children,  by  Jesus  Christ 
to  himself,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  to  the 
praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace,  wherein  he  hath  made  us  ac- 
cepted in  the  Beloved."  Ep.  i :  5,  6.  There  is,  in  each  case,  as  it 
arises,  a  special  interposition  of  his  will.  He  is  at  liberty  to 
exercise  his  grace  or  not,  as  seems  good  in  his  sight.  He  chooses  the 
subjects  towards  whom  he  extends  the  sceptre  of  mercy.  Besides, 
since  pardon  must  be  bestowed  a£  the  discretion  of  some  one  or 
more,  being  an  act  above  law,  we  ask  at  whose  discretion  can  it 
safely  lie  ?  The  majesty  of  the  law — the  glory  of  the  Most  High 
and  the  stability  of  the  government,  working  the  happiness  of 
countless  multitudes,  are  all  concerned  in  its  exercise.  Who 
but  Jehovah  is  sufficient  for  these  things  ?  Whose  will  would 
here  afford  any  guaranty  against  sudden  and  sure  destruction  ? 
If  there  be  a  prerogative  which  from  its  nature  must  inhere  in 
the  sovereign,  surely  this  must  be  that  prerogative.  True,  he  has 
promised  forgiveness  to  every  believing  sinner,  and  herein  he 
has  relaxed  his  severity.  But  he  has  done  so,  only  to  magnify 
his  sovereignty,  for  the  promise  to  which  he  has  bound  himself 
is  the  gift  of  his  grace.  "  For  ye  are  saved  by  grace,  and  that 
not  of  yourselves.  It  is  the  gift  of  God."  "  The  wages  of  sin  is 
death."  Thus  he  still  exercises  his  pleasure,  and  at  his  discre- 
tion alone  is  pardon  bestowed. 

3,  Forgiveness  is  the  most  amiable  act  of  supremacy. 

The  pardon  of  sin  is  beyond  all  doubt  the  most  precious  boon 
that  can  be  bestowed  on  a  sinner.  It  rolls  back  the  sentence  of 
the  law,  lifts  off  from  his  soul  the  overwhelming  burden  ot  guilt 
and  lights  up  his  pathway  with  joy  and  peace  unutterable.  It 
dissipates  the  sorrows  of  death  and  mitigates  the  pains  of  hell, 
and  in  their  place  fills  the  mouth  with  the  song  of  praise,  is  o 
blessedness  like  this  to  a  sinner — compared  with  it,  his  creation 
may  be  forgotten,  for  without  it,  that  creation  were  a  curse. — 
When  then  the  sovereign  dispenses  it,  he  presents  himself  to  the 


19 


view  of  his  subjects  in  the  most  endearing  light.  Touched  with 
pity  for  the  misery  of  his  sinful  creature,  and  unwilling  that  he 
should  perish — he  stretches  out  to  the  sinner  at  his  feet  his  scep- 
tre of  mercy  and  bids  him  live — live  forever.  What  can  more 
endear  him  to  his  fallen  creature?  Can  such  a  display  fail  to 
touch  the  springs  of  any  generous  bosom?  Will  not  the  sinner 
be  bound  to  him  by  the  strongest  ties?  Can  he  ever  forget  it, 
that  he  sought  and  found  pardon  ?  Will  he  not  forget  the  hand 
that  created  him  in  his  own  glory,  in  love  and  admiration  of  the 
hand  that  pardoned  him  ? — Who  can  doubt  it  ? 

4.  Forgiveness  in  each  act  necessarily  implies  the  exercise  of 
Omniscience. 

The  penalty  of  the  law  varies  both  in  kind  and  degree,  in  pro- 
portion to  the  heinousness  as  well  as  the  number  of  the  sins 
committed.  "  And  that  servant  that  knew  his  Lord's  will,  and 
prepared  not  himself,  neither  did  according  to  his  will,  shall  be 
beaten  with  many  stripes.  But  he  that  knew  not,  and  did  com- 
mit things  worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be  beaten  with  fewT  stripes. 
For  unto  whomsoever  much  is  given,  of  him  shall  much  be  re- 
quired, and  to  whom  men  have  committed  much,  of  him  they 
will  ask  the  more." 

In  order  then  to  the  adjustment  of  the  penalty  to  the  offence, 
it  is  necessary  to  estimate  properly  the  heinousness  as  well  as 
know  precisely  the  number  of  transgressions.  Again,  the  hei- 
nousness of  sin  is  affected  by  all  the  circumstances  attendant 
on  it,  among  which  not  the  least  important  is  the  state  of  the 
sinner's  mind.  To  estimate  it,  accordingly,  requires  a  thorough 
acquaintance  with  all  their  transgressions,  especially  with  the 
heart  of  the  individual. 

Now  since  forgiveness  is  the  entire  removal  of  all  guilt  or 
legal  liability  to  punishment,  and  punishment  is  proportion- 
ed to  the  number  and  nature  and  aggravation  of  sins,  its 
exercise  presupposes  and  demands  a  perfect  knowledge  in  this 
respect.  He  who  dispenses  it,  must  in  an  especial  manner, 
be  able  to  fathom  the  heart,  to  know  the  thoughts  and  feel- 
ings and  purposes  of  the  sinner's  mind — to  give  the  three 
their  relative  place  and  weight  among  all  the  other  aggravating 
or  modifying  circumstances,  which  go  to  make  up  the  aggregate 
of  his  guilt.    Indeed,  he  must  search  the  heart  and  try  the  reins 


20 


of  the  children  of  men.  It*  he  does  not  possess  all  this  know- 
ledge, he  may  fail  to  set  aside  the  claims  of  the  law  in  their 
full  extent,  which  remaining  still  on  the  head  of  the  sinner,  must 
bring  him  to  punishment,  i.  e.  he  is  not  forgiven. 

But  the  scriptures  explicitly  assert  that  this  kind  of  knowledge 
belongs  to  the  Omniscient  one  alone.  God  claims  it  as  his  sole 
prerogative  to  search  the  hearts,  so  as  to  intimate  guilt  and  to 
apportion  to  each  one  the  punishment  due  to  his  sins.  Hear  his 
own  language — "  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  des- 
perately wicke:!,  who  can  know  it  ? 

"  I  the  Lord,  search  the  hearts,  I  try  the  reins,  even  to  give 
every  man  according  to  his  ways  and  according  to  the  fruit  ot 
his  doings." 

The  same  knowledge  is  claimed  by  Jesus  as  the  Eternal  Son 
of  God,  "and  all  the  churches  shall  know  that  I  am  he  which 
searcheth  the  reins  and  hearts ;  and  I  will  give  unto  every  one 
of  you  according  to  his  works." 

It  follows  therefore  that  the  exercise  of  forgiveness  must  al- 
ways be  attended  with  that  of  Omniscience. 

5.  Forgiveness  in  each  act  also  implies  the  exercise  of  Om- 
nipotence. 

The  pardon  of  sin,  which  in  itself  simply  denotes  a  change  of 
relation,  is  in  the  plan  of  salvation  revealed  in  the  Gospel  insepa- 
rably connected  with  a  radical  change  of  character.  He,  whose 
sins  are  forgiven  is  a  believer — "  To  him,  i.  e.,  Jesus,  gave  all 
the  prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name,  whosoever  believ- 
eth  on  him,  shall  receive  remission  of  sins." 

Besides,  forgiveness  is  always  associated  in  the  Scriptures  with 
repentance.  Thus  our  Lord  told  his  disciples,  "That  repent- 
ance and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name,  be- 
ginning at  Jerusalem."  This  we  imagine  will  not  be  questioned 
for  a  moment.  And  if  so,  it  follows  that  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
must  be  associated  with  the  exercise  of  the  power  to  give  faith 
and  repentance.  So  in  fact,  Peter  represented  it  to  the  Jewish 
council,  when,  speaking  of  Jesus,  he  said,  "  Him  hath  God  ex- 
alted with  his  right  hand  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour  for  to 
give  repentance  to  Israel  and  the  remission  of  sins." 

And  without  this  power  it  is  obvious  that  the  power  of  for- 
giviness  would  be  a  nullity. 


21 


But  repentance  and  faith  are  the  points  of  that  change  in  the 
heart  which  the  Scriptures  denote  by  the  terms  creation,  resur- 
rection, a  new  birth,  the  taking  away  of  the  heart  of  stone  and 
giving  a  heart  of  flesh.  Such  terms,  if  they  have  any  meaning, 
must  denote  such  an  exertion  of  power  in  producing  this  change, 
as  is  implied  necessarily  in  bringing  all  things  at  first  out  of  no- 
thing, or  in  raising  the  dead  or  in  infusing  life  into  an  inanimate 
mass.  And  who  can  doubt  that  these  are  in  our  view  among  the 
most  unequivocal  acts  of  Omnipotence  ?  "Who  doubts  that  the 
power  which  creates,  which  calls  the  dead  from  the  deep  slum- 
ber of  the  tomb,  which  brings  on  the  stage  of  life  thousands 
who  before  existed  not,  is  the  putting  forth  of  the  Almighty 
arm  ?  All  this  is  necessary  to  convey  the  precious  boon  of 
forgiveness  to  sinners,  and  hence  the  act  of  forgiveness  must  be 
associated  with  Omnipotence,  or  it  is  nothing  worth. 

II.  THE  POWER  TO  FORGIVE  SINS. 

From  this  view  of  the  act  of  forgiveness,  it  is  not  difficult  to 
discern  the  nature  of  the  forgiving  power.  This  is  the  source 
whence  these  acts  proceed.  Each  act  of  forgiveness  is  but  an 
exercise — an  efrlux  of  the  power  to  forgive.  The  act3  of  forgive- 
ness are  the  streams — the  power  to  forgive  is  the  fountain — and 
from  the  streams  we  may  go  up  to  the  fountain. 

If  then,  these  acts,  as  we  have  seen,  are  acts  of  supremacy — 
and  special  discretionary  acts  of  supremacy,  and  the  most  amia- 
ble acts  of  supremacy — if,  moreover,  these  acts  involve  the  ex- 
ercise, both  of  omniscience  and  omnipotence,  then  is  it  manifest 
that  the  power  of  which  they  are  but  the  mere  exercises,  must 
not  only  be  a  branch  of  the  supreme  power — but  of  that  supreme 
power  in  its  most  distinctive  aspect :  God  as  invested  with  it,  en- 
robes himself  in  the  vestments  of  his  high  sovereignty,  and 
cumes  forth  to  the  view  of  all  his  creatures  in  the  most  awful 
and  imposing  manner — putting  his  hand  on  the  head  of  a  poor 
sinner,  turning  aside  from  his  head  the  just  sentence  of  his  holy 
law,  and  sending  him  forth  big  with  hope  on  the  pathway  of  life 
and  glory  and  immortality.  Never  is  he  so  much  an  Almighty 
Sovereign,  shining  forth  in  his  peerless  majesty  to  our  view,  as  at 
such  a  moment  and  in  such  an  act.  Never  does  he  tower  so  far 
above  all  the  creatures  of  his  hands,  and  leave  at  such  an  im- 


22 


measurable  distance  below  him,  Gabriel,  Michael,  and  all  the 
lofty  ones  who  burn  and  shine  around  his  eternal  throne — as 
when  he  says  to  the  poor  condemned  ruined  sinner,  "  Thy  sins 
are  forgiven  thee,  arise  and  go  in  peace.1'  Then  His  authority 
rises  above  the  law,  and  then  is  he  seen  holding  in  his  hands  the 
eternal  destiny  of  the  fallen  children  of  Adam. 

And  such  being  the  nature  of  this  power,  how  can  we  avoid 
the  conclusion  that  He  only  can  forgive  sins — that  he  reserves  it 
entirely  in  his  own  hands — that  he  will  not,  that  he  cannot  in- 
trust it  to  any  creature.  If  there  be  a  power  inseparable  from 
his  Godhead — one  in  which,  more  than  in  any  other,  he  ap 
pears  to  us  as  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate — the  Independent 
Sovereign,  wielding  the  eternal  destiny  of  his  creatures — it  must 
be  this.  If  the  exercise  of  this  power — which  is  an  exercise  of 
sovereignty,  involving  both  Omniscience  and  Omnipotence,  does 
not  define  the  Eternal  I  Am  to  our  view — then  may  we  utterly 
despair  of  ever  being  able  to  distinguish  him  from  his  creatures, 
and  live  in  constant  dread  of  rendering  to  a  finite  being  that 
homage  which  is  due  to  the  Infinite  One,  and  consequently,  of 
incurring  his  heaviest  displeasure.  But  no,  this  cannot  be.  To 
forgive,  is  the  prerogative  of  Jehovah — a  right  which  he  enjoys 
alone — a  right  belonging  to  Him  in  contradistinction  to  those 
which  belong  to  his  creatures.  "  I,  even  I,  am  He  that  blotteth 
out  thy  transgressions  for  my  name  sake." 

This  is  the  flower  of  his  crown — will  he  pluck  it  out  and  give 
it  to  another  ?  It  is  his  crown  itself — will  he  take  it  off  and  put 
it  on  another's  head?  Pharaoh  said  to  Joseph,  "Thou  shak  be 
over  my  house,  according  unto  thy  word  shall  all  my  people  be 
ruled  ;  only  in  the  throne  will  I  be  greater  than  thou."  But  to 
bestow  the  power  of  forgiving  sins  on  a  creature,  would  be  to 
do  more  than  Pharaoh  did  to  Joseph.  It  would  be  to  put  the 
crown  on  his  head,  and  make  him  greater  in  the  throne  than  Je- 
hovah. It  would  be  to  reserve  no  greater  power  to  himself. — 
And  will  God  give  his  glory  to  another  ?  Besides,  should  he  be 
willing  to  give  his  crown  to  another — what  head  could  wear  it? 
Could  Gabriel  ?  "  Could  he  read  the  heart  and  try  the  reins  ?" 
Could  he  new  create  the  soul  ?  Could  he  dispose  of  seats  in  glo- 
ry ?  ~No !  beneath  such  a  load,  he  would  bow  down — sink — be 
crushed,  aye,  annihilated.    The  sceptre  then,  which  extends  mer- 


23 


cy  to  the  sinner,  in  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins,  is  the  sceptre  to 
which  all  heaven  bows,  and  at  which  all  hell  quakes.  We  need 
not  fear  to  fall  down  before  Him  who  stretches  it  out  to  us,  and 
worship  Him  as  the  Lord  God  Almighty,  which  liveth  and  reign- 
eth  forever. 

A.  EXAMINATIONS  OF  THE  PRETENTIONS  TO  THIS  POWER. 

We  think  we  have  established  our  point,  and  shown  the  pow- 
er under  consideration  to  be  in  its  very  nature  to  be  inalienable. 
It  now  only  remains  that  we  make  a  practical  application  of  the 
principles  involved  in  the  foregoing  discussion,  by  making  use 
of  them  to  examine  the  pretensions  which  have  been  put  forth 
to  the  possession  and  exercise  of  this  power.  These  pretentions, 
must  in  order  to  any  appearance  of  validity,  be  based  on  the 
assumption  that  this  power  is  delegated,  or,  that  the  power  still 
residing  in  God,  is  exercised  through  or  in  connexion  with  the 
agency  of  certain  individuals.  The  former  is  the  ground  on 
which  the  church  of  Rome  rests  her  bold  claims,  and  shuts  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  against  all  who  will  not  bow  to  her  dictats. 
The  other  is  that  preferred  by  high  churchmen,  who,  fearful  of 
proceeding  all  the  length  of  the  Mother  of  abominations,  are 
yet  desirous  of  retaining  in  their  creed  this  dogma  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, in  order  to  impart  dignity  and  importance  to  the  ministry. 
Let  us,  then,  examine  the  views  of  both  parties,  and  see  how  far 
they  are  sustained  in  them  by  Scripture  and  reason. 

i.    Is  this  power  ever  delegated  to  any  finite  being  ? 

This  question,  it  would  seem,  might  easily  be  answered  from  a 
right  view  of  the  nature  of  the  power.  This  has  been  the  burden 
of  all  our  preceding  discussion.  We  have  seen  that  it  is  accord- 
ing to  Bacon's  distinction,  a  branch  of  that  absolute  prerogative 
which  resides  in  the  Godhead,  according  to  his  private  will  and 
judgment.  We  have  seen,  further,  that  its  effect  in  every  case, 
necessarily  implies  the  presence  of  Omnipotence  and  Omnis- 
cience. On  both  these  grounds,  we  have  declared  it  to  be  in- 
communicable— incapable  of  being  transferred  to  any  mere  crea- 
ture, and  therefore  is  not  delegated  to  any  such,  because  it  can- 
not be.  But  let  us  suppose  for  a  moment  that  such  a  thing  were 
possible,  what  would  be  the  necessary  result?  Would  not  that 
being  become  ipso  facto  supreme?    Supreme  power  delegated, 


24 


renders  him  to  whom  it  is  delegated,  supreme.1'  Omniscience 
delegated,  if  such^a  thing  be  conceivable,  invests  the  individual 
with  a  power  to  know  all  things.  Delegated  omnipotence  is 
omnipotence  still.  And  can  such  powers  reside  in  a  creature  ? 
Is  not  the  Supreme  one  God  over  all,  blessed  forever?  Does 
not  the  exercise  of  omniscience  and  omnipotence,  flowing  from 
a  power  resident  in  Him  mark  out  the  High  and  Holy  One, 
whom  all  are  bound  to  adore.  If  not,  how  shall  he  ever  claim 
our  allegiance  in  any  manifestation  he  may  or  can  make  of  him- 
self. The  absurdity  of  this  conclusion  shows  the  falsity  of  ohe 
supposition. 

But  we  will  here  be  confronted  by  the  passage  in  John  xx :  23, 
in  which  this  power  is  expressly  said  to  be  bestowed  on  the 
Apostles.  This  text  will  come  more  fully  under  consideration  in 
a  subsequent  part  of  this  discourse.  For  the  present,  it  may  suf- 
fice to  say,  that  while  we  admit  such  to  be  its  most  obvious 
meaning,  yet  an  interpretation  so  much  at  variance  with  the 
views  every  where  advanced  in  the  Scriptures,  and  so  inconsist- 
ent with  right  reason,  cannot  be  sustained  unless  it  can  be  shown 
to  be  the  only  one  of  which  the  passage  is  susceptible.  And 
that  this  language  may  be  otherwise  understood,  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  a  great  multitude  of  pious  and  learned  men  have  so 
understood  it. 

II.  IS  THIS  POWER  EXERCISED  THROUGH  HUMAN  AGENCY  ? 

This  view  seems,  at  first,  to  be  free  from  all  the  objections 
arising  from  the  nature  ol  the  power  as  inalienable,  admitting 
that  God  only  can  forgive  sins,  and  claiming  simply  that  he  ex- 
ercises it  in  connexion  with  human  instrumentality — while  there- 
fore it  apparently  shields  its  advocates  from  the  danger  and  guilt 
involved  in  those  daring  pretentions,  it  leaves  them  certainly  in 
the  same  condition  to  all  practical  purposes ;  for  so  long  as  par- 
don can  come  only  through  the  ministry,  our  souls  are  in  their 
hands.  This  point,  accordingly,  demands  a  careful  examination. 
And  the  more  so,  too,  because  this  view,  it  is  contended,  is  sup- 
ported by  many  examples  in  the  Old  and  Xew  Testament.  Thus, 
we  read  that  Moses  laid  his  hands  on  Joshua,  and  the.  spirit  of 
wisdom  came  down  on  him.  But  it  should  be  noticed  that  Mo- 
ses acted  in  accordance  with  a  special  revelation  of  God's  will 


25 


"And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  take  thee  Joshua,  the  son  of 
Nun,  a  man  in  whom  is  the  Spirit,  and  lay  thine  hands  on  him. 
And  thou  shalt  put  some  of  thine  honor  on  him.  that  all  the 
congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel  may  be  obedient." — 
Again  Annanias  was  sent  to  Saul  in  Damascus,  that  lie  might 
receive  his  sight,  and  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  An- 
nanias, too,  acted  in  obedience  to  a  special  disclosure  of  God's 
will  made  to  him,  and  this  fact  he  declared  to  Saul  at  the 
time,  and  so  in  all  similar  cases.  Now,  this  special  revela- 
tion we  regard  as  essentially  necessary.  For  iiow  otherwise 
would  it  be  possible  for  the  ministry  to  know  when  and  where, 
and  towards  whom,  God  would  be  pleased  to  put  forth  his  par- 
doning mercy  ?  Or  how  would  the  individual  to  whom  the  min- 
ister was  sent  know  that  his  sins  were  forgiven?  The  only 
ground  of  assurance  would  be  the  word  of  a  man,  a  ground  ut- 
terly insufficient,  unless  he  proved  himself  to  be  a  messenger 
from  God.  A  revelation  from  God  would  be  all  that  was  re- 
quisite, but  it  is  indispensable.  Each  case,  as  it  arises,  would  de- 
mand a  special  disclosure,  and  thus  the  minister  would  need  to 
receive  constantly,  new  revelations  of  the  mind  of  God.  But,  so 
far  as  we  know,  this  special  privilege  is  not  claimed  by  those 
with  whom  we  are  now  at  issue.  They  make  no  pretensions  to 
new  light  from  above,  or  to  plenary  inspiration.  They  are  ac- 
cordingly constrained  to  abandon  this  position,  if  they  are  ready 
to  submit  to  sound  argument. 

But,  perhaps,  we  may  be  told  that  there  is  no  need  of  a  spe- 
cial revelation,  a  general  one  is  all  that  is  sufficient ;  and  that  is 
given  us  in  the  sure  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth  for- 
ever. If  this  can  be  shown,  we  are  ready  to  submit  without  any 
further  debate.  Before,  however,  proceeding  to  examine  the 
Scripture  passages  supposed  to  maintain  their  views,  let  us  inquire 
what  is  meant  by  this  general  revelation,  or  by  a  general  revelation 
authorising  the  belief  that  God  exercises  this  power  through  or  in 
connexion  with  a  specified  human  agency.  If  this  were  so,  then 
God,  otherwise  at  liberty  to  pardon  whom  he  pleases,  binds  himself 
to  exercise  his  prerogative  only  through  a  certain  mediation ;  of 
course  he  is  no  longer  free  to  exercise  his  pleasure  in  each  case. 
Pardon  is  no  more  according  to  his  private  will  and  judgment. 
The  will  of  man  becomes  essentially  necessary,  and  thus  his 
declaration  to  Moses  no  longer  remains  true  :    "  I  will  be  gra- 


cions  to  whom  I  will  bo  gracious,  and  will  show  mercy  on  whom 
I  will  show  mercy,1'  Ex.  xxxiii,  19  ;  because  God  has  bound  him- 
self to  exercise  his  will  in  every  case  in  which  these,  his  ap- 
pointed instruments,  are  pleased  to  exercise  theirs.  It  is  not, 
then,  according  to  God's  good  pleasure,  but  according  to  that  of 
the  ministry.  Their  discretion  regulates  the  course  of  procedure. 
And  is  not  this  to  all  practical  purposes,  an  assumption  of  this 
power?  Is  there  not  a  delegation  of  it  to  the  ministry?  And, 
accordingly,  does  not  this  opinion  lie  open  to  all  the  objections 
we  have  raised  against  the  first  opinion  \  Most  assuredly  it  does, 
in  our  judgment,  and  we  can  see  in  this  belief,  nothing  more 
than  an  attempt  to  escape  these  objections  in  theory  while  they 
still  retain  all  their  force  in  practice.  We  regard,  then,  such  a 
binding  himself  up,  in  the  exercise  of  this  prerogative,  as  utter- 
ly inconsistent  with  its  nature,  and  impossible  in  the  nature  of 
the  case.  But  our  opponents  here  say  all  this  reasoning  is  set 
aside  by  the  plain  declarations  of  Scripture,  such  passages  as 
John  xx  :  23  :  "  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted 
unto  them,  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained."* 

*  "  The  Holy  Catholic  Church  hath  in  all  ages,  referred  to  this  passage  as  a  com- 
rnission  to  the  most  important  spiritual  functions.  It  was  ever  understood  to  mean 
what  its  language  literally  imports.  It  is  the  explicit  sense  of  our  church  that  the 
power  of  remission  and  retention  is  as  permanent  as  the  ministry,  and  is  an  essential 
prerogative  of  the  sacerdotal  office.  Wherever  remission  of  sins  is  spoken  of,  we 
attach  but  one  idea  to  the  expression. — Br.  Curtis'  Sermon,  pp.  o,  6. 

Nature  of  the  povjer  to  forgive  as  thus  bestowed  on  the  Ministry. 

This  is  not  an  independent  or  intrinsic  power,  *  *  *  *.  Such  power  belongs 
to  God  alone.  It  must,  therefore,  be  a  ministerial  or  instrumental  power.  Godhav^ 
ing  appointed  an  order  of  men  in  the  world  to  accomplish  his  gracious  purposes  of 
mercy  to  mankind,  makes  them  his  agents  in  conferring  the  blessings  which  he  has 
5n  store  for  them.  lie  has  entrusted  to  them  certain  powers,  whose  proper  exercise  he 
has  engaged  to  ratify. 

The  embassador  of  an  earthly  monarch,  in  treating  with  revolted  subjects,  may  be 
invested  with  the  power  of  settling  the  conditions  of  reconciliation,  as  well  as  of 
promising  to  all  who  will  submit  to  them.  Although  the  original  source  of  pardon  and 
its  final  ratification  are  with  the  sovereign,  yet,  if  his  agent  or  minister  has  kept  by 
the  articles  furnished  him,  he  has  so  far,  acted  in  place  of  his  sovereign,  who  wil} 
ratify  and  confirm  the  acts  of  his  minister,  as  much  as  if  done  by  himself.  *  *  * 
Through  the  ministry  as  the  agent  and  instrument,  are  conferred  all  these  benefits 
which  are  implied  in  the  ordinances.  These,  when  rightly  administered,  and  duly 
received,  are  as  effective  of  their  purpose,  as  if  administered  by  the  independent  or 
supreme  power.  *  *  *  *  (This  is  all  pretty  well ;  our  friend  has  his  eyes  open 
while  speaking  directly  on  the  nature  of  this  power,  but  as  v;c  shall  sec,  he  Waxes 
bolder  and  bolder  as  he  proceeds.) 


27 


Matthew  xviii,  18 :  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye 
shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever 
ye  shall  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  Matt.  xvi, 
19:  "And  I  will  give  unto  thee  (i.  e.  Peter)  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth 
shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on 
earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven." 

Before  proceeding  to  the  consideration  of  these  passages,  it 
may  be  well  to  remember  the  purpose  for  which  they  are  intro- 
duced by  our  opponents — not  to  prove  that  this  power  is  dele- 
gated to  the  ministry — this  is  repudiated  ;  but  to  show  that  God 
limits  his  own  exercise  of  it  by  the  discretion  of  a  regularly  au- 
thorized ministry.  This  is  all  we  have  to  do  with  this.  Our 
business  is  simply  to  show  that  they  cannot  be  brought  forward 
to  substantiate  such  a  view. 

It  is  contended  that  these  three  passages  contain  the  same 
idea,  which  is  most  clearly,  because  literally,  expressed  by  John, 
and  therefore  are  to  be  interpreted  by  it.  If  so,  i.  e.,  if  we  are 
to  take  the  language  of  John  in  its  most  obvious  and  literal 
sense,  then  it  explicitly  teaches  that  the  Apostles  were  endowed 
with  the  plenary  power  of  forgiveness  at  discretion. 

Now  this,  in  the  eyes  of  our  opponents  is  very  different  from 
the  idea  that  God  made  use  of  them  and  now  makes  use  of  the 
Christian  ministry  as  a  special  mediation  through  which  he  dis- 
penses pardon.  And  it  will  not  do  to  meet  all  the  formidable 
objections  which  are  raised  to  the  grant  of  any  such  power  to 

*  *  *  And  hence,  it  maybe  urged,  of  what  special  and  positive  value  is  a  min- 
istry if  its  service  be  only  of  incidental  benefit,  such  as  not  ensues  from  the  sober  ac- 
tion of  any  man  whatever,  and  not  of  an  appointed  and  certain  efficacy  ;  one  to  which 
mankind,  encouraged  and  fortified  by  the  promises  of  God,  can  confidently  resort  as 
the  divinely  authorised  agent  for  dispensing  grace  to  the  soul.  (The  power  for 
which  Dr.  C.  contends  then,  whatever  may  be  its  nature,  must  be  such  as  to  engender 
in  an  intelligent  mind  the  conviction,  that  the  ministers  in  whom  it  resides,  or  through 
whom  it  flows,  are  so  authorised  to  dispense  pardon,  that  their  declaration  is  an  infalli- 
ble ground  of  assurance  of  pardon.)  If  the  ministry  be  an  appointed  office,  it  must 
have  an  authority  and  efficiency,  which  does  not  belong  to  those  who  are  not  invest- 
ed with  it.  This  authority,  though  delegated,  is  competent  to  all  the  purposes  for 
which  it  was  bestowed,  and  when  actually  given,  is  as  efficient  to  its  end  as  though  it 
were  original  and  independent.  A  true  authority  implies  either  an  inherent  or  ac- 
companying power,  which  is  competent  to  all  the  purposes  for  which  it  is  held. 
And,  although  a  delegated  authority  implies  a  derived  and  limited  power,  yet  that 
power  is  in  its  effects  precisely  the  same  as  if  original  or  exercised  by  the  supreme 
— Dr.  Curtis'  Sermon,  p.  0,  11,  12. 


28 


the  ministry,  by  saying  that  all  that  is  meant  is,  that  God  makes 
use  of  them  as  the  appointed  channel  through  which  he  himself 
•conveys  pardon,  and  then  appeal  to  these  passages  in  proof  of 
the  doctrine  as  thus  explained.  Their  literal  import  is  that  the 
apostles  were  impowered  to  forgive  sins  at  their  discretion — and 
only  in  proof  of  such  a  pretence  can  they  in  their  literal  view 
he  fairly  urged.  They  may  thus  be  quoted  by  the  advocates  of 
the  claims  of  the  Eomish  church,  and  are  thus  often  appealed  to 
in  defence  of  their  claims — but  none  who  are  not  prepared  to  go 
all  the  length  of  these  followers  of  the  Man  of  sin  have  any 
l  ight  to  appeal  to  them.  Our  reply  to  them  has  already  been 
given.  But  those  with  whom  we  are  at  issue  now  disclaim  such 
views.  These  contend  merely  that  the  ministry  are  the  agents  or 
instruments  through  whom  the  benefit  of  forgiveness  is  bestow- 
ed. Such  is  not  the  literal  import  of  the  passages  above  cited, 
which  are  consequently  of  no  avail  to  establish  these  views. 

AYe  remark  further,  that  whatever  may  be  the  power  here 
granted,  it  cannot  be  proven  to  have  been  granted  to  the  apos- 
tles exclusively.  It  is  clear  from  John  that  the  occasion  on  which 
these  words  were  spoken  was  on  the  evening  of  our  Lord's  re- 
surrection— when  the  disciples  were  gathered  together  in  Jeru- 
salem with  closed  doors  for  fear  of  the  Jews.  John  tells  us  that 
the  disciples  were  present  and  were  the  persons  addressed,  "Then 
were  the  disciples  glad  when  they  saw  the  Lord.  Then  said 
Jesus  to  them  again,  Peace  be  unto  you  :  as  my  father  hath  sent 
me  even  so  send  I  you.  And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breath- 
ed on  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost;  whosesoever  sins  ye 
remit,"  &c.  Now  Luke  (24 :  33)  tells  us,  in  speaking  of  the  same 
occasion,  who  these  disciples  were — they  were  not  only  the  elev- 
en apostles,  but  they  that  were  with  them — i.  e.,  all  the  disci- 
ples— so  that  the  power  here  granted  was  not  granted  exclusive- 
ly to  the  ministry,  but  given  to  all  the  disciples.  The  passage 
then  can  with  no  show  of  fairness  be  alleged  in  proof  of  any 
special  power  conferred  on  the  Romish  ministry. 

Once  more — granting  that  the  apostles  were  the  individuals 
here  addressed,  though  other  disciples  were  present,  and  that  to 
them  alone  was  this  power  given.  Yet  since  this  power  is  grant- 
ed or  promised  in  immediate  connexion  with  the  conferring  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  significantly  alluded  to  by  our  Lord's  breathing 
on  them-  it  f***niK   hp  «liown  fbnt  if        nof  nrvqntod  to  them  as 


29 


inspired  men  and  that  none  possess  it  but  those  who  have  such 
supernatural  gifts.  On  such  a  supposition,  we  see  no  difficulty 
in  the  exercise  of  such  a  power  on  their  part.  For  being  en- 
dowed with  the  power  of  discerning  spirits,  they  could  infallibly 
distinguish  such  as  were  real  penitents  and  believers,  and  their 
authoritative  declaration  based  on  this  knowledge  would  be  only 
an  annunciation  of  what  God  had  already  done.  It  would  in 
reality  be  no  more  than  a  declaration  to  others  of  a  disclosure 
of  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  forgiveness  on  the  part  of  God 
made  to  them  by  the  direct  communication  of  the  Spirit.  But 
such  a  grant  as  this  avails  nothing  to  advance  the  claims  of  such 
as  now  pretend  to  exercise  the  power  of  forgiveness,  unless  they 
can  show  themselves  inspired  men.  So  that  the  text  viewed  in 
all  its  meanings,  in  no  one  of  them  answers  the  purpose  for  which 
it  has  so  often  and  so  exultingly  been  quoted.  And  this  being 
the  main  and  sole  prop  of  this  dogma,  we  are  warranted  to  con- 
clude that  there  is  no  revelation  made  in  the  Scriptures  of  any 
purpose  of  God  to  confer  pardon  through  the  ministry  as  a  spe- 
cial mediation.  None  in  which  they  are  warranted  to  say  to  a 
sinner,  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee,  and  this  declaration  thereby 
be  an  evidence  that  his  sins  are  really  forgiven. 

But  we  contend  farther,  that  the  pretensions,  which  men  set 
up  to  the  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins  are  not  only  false,  but 
blasphemous.  That  these  pretensions  put  forth  in  any  form  are 
high,  their  advocates  candidly  acknowledge.  It  is  for  the  avow- 
ed purpose  of  investing  themselves  and  the  ministry  in  general 
with  a  great  degree  of  authority,  and  giving  |  themselves  eleva- 
tion in  the  eyes  of  the  church,  that  they  are  put  forth.  They 
are,  however,  in  our  view,  not  only  high  and  arrogant,  but  blas- 
phemous. 

If  the  conclusion  reached  in  the  foregoing  discussion  be  cor- 
rect, then  it  has  been  shown  that  the  claims  advanced  are  such 
as  if  true,  demand  at  the  hands  of  all,  the  reverence  and  hom- 
age due  to  the  supreme  and  Mighty  One.  They  are  claims  of 
the  possession  of  the  highest  prerogative  of  supremacy,  and  of 
attributes  which  cannot  inhere  in  a  finite  being.  If  these  claims 
however,  are  false,  which  on  principles  laid  down  is  obviously 
so,  then  those  who  make  them  must  be  under  the  serious  charge 
of  a  bold  assumption  of  the  prerogative  of  God.  These  men  at- 
tempt to  mount  up  and  occupy  the  throne  of  God  and  profes- 


30 


sing  to  be  seated  there,  they  call  on  others  to  confess  their  sins 
unto  them  in  order  to  forgiveness.  Pretending  that  they  sit  upon 
the  throne  of  grace,  they  invite  us  to  come  boldly  to  them  that 
we  may  obtain  mercy  and  find  grace  in  time  of  need.  And  alas  ! 
how  many  thousands  and  myriads  of  poor  ignorant  deluded 
souls  are  led  away  by  their  craft.  If  any  one  more  wise  say  to 
one  of  such  pretenders,  "  "Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only  ?" 
is  there  one,  a  single  one  of  them,  that  can  say  to  a  palsied  man, 
"  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed  and  go  unto  thine  house,"  and  the  pal- 
sied man  will  arise  and  do  so  ?  Is  there  one  who  can  substanti- 
ate his  claims  to  the  authority  to  forgive  sins  on  earth,  by  such 
or  a  similar  faith  ?  Jesus  did  not  hesitate  to  do  so — to  show  his 
authority  ;  and  surely  since  the  servant  is  not  above  his  Lord, 
his  legitimate  successors  should  not  hesitate  to  follow  his  exam- 
ple. 

But  we  repeat  it,  is  there  one  that  can  or  will  do  it.  If  so, 
where  is  he?  Let  him  come  forward  and  produce  his  strong- 
claims.  Till  then  we  may  be  pardoned  for  replying  to  one  and 
all  of  such  claimants,  "  Jesus  we  know,  Paul  we  know,  but  who 
are  ye  ?"  * 

Did  I  ask  who  are  they  ?  Did  I  inquire  who  are  such  as  pre- 
tend to  say  to  a  poor  sinner,  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee  and  ex- 
pect that  it  will  be  even  so  according  to  their  declaration  ?  Why 
need  I  ask  a  question  answered  long  ago,  to  guard  us  if  possible 
against  the  danger  of  ignorance  on  this  point  ?  Look  at  2nd 
Thess.  ii.  "We  read  of  that  man  of  sin,  the  son  of  perdition,  who 
opposeth  and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or  that 
which  is  worshipped,  so  that  he  as  God  sitteth  in  the  temple  of 
God  showing  himself  that  he  is  God."  Can  we  fail  to  recognize 
in  these  features  the  likeness  of  these  pretenders  ?  Could  de- 
scription be  more  accurate  in  its  main  points  ?  Who  opposeth 
and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God  or  that  is  wor- 
shipped ?  Is  not  this  precisely  what  we  have  proved  to  be  the 
amount  of  their  pretentions  ?  Have  we  not  shown  that  they  ex- 
alt themselves  to  supremacy  in  its  highest  and  most  distinctive 
exercise  ?  So  that  he  as  God  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  show- 
ing himself  that  he  is  God.  Have  we  not  also  shown  that  they 
show  themselves  to  be  God,  by  their  calling  on  men  to  seek  for- 
giveness at  their  hands,  occupying  places  of  trust  and  honor  in 
the  church  on  earth. 


31 


We  therefore  conclude  that  these  men  are  guilty  of  blasphe- 
my. Does  such  a  conclusion  startle  us?  Do  we  shrink  back 
and  pause  before  we  can  be  persuaded  that  men  could  be  car- 
ried so  far  in  their  zeal  to  maintain  their  influence  and  increase 
their  authority  ?  "Why  should  we  ?  Has  not  the  apostle  ac- 
counted for  it?  He  declares  that  they  are  given  up  to  strong 
delusion,  to  believe  a  lie  that  they  may  all  be  damned,  and  this 
because  they  believed  not  the  truth,  but  take  pleasure  in  un- 
righteousness. 

Those  given  up  to  judicial  blindness,  may  proceed  to  any 
length  in  the  way  of  iniquity  and  absurdity.  And  surely  it  is 
reasonable  to  suppose  there  is  no  sin  which  God  would  be  more 
ready  to  punish  with  an  unsparing  hand  than  that  which  makes 
so  bold  an  onset  on  his  dearest  prerogative — as  one  which  would 
pluck  the  flower  from  his  crown. 

The  force  of  these  remarks  is  not  at  all  weakened  by  the  reply 
that  the  power  claimed  is  only  conditionally  effective.  If  by 
this  it  were  meant  that  the  ministry  possessed  only  the  power  of 
declaring  the  sins  of  the  true  penitent  forgiven,  then  all  objec- 
tions to  it3  exercise  would  be  obviated.  But  that  such  is  not 
the  meaning  we  are  to  attach  to  these  terms,  is  obvious  from  the 
consideration  that  this  is  our  authority,  which  every  one  with 
the  Scriptures  in  his  hands,  is  at  liberty  to  exercise.  The  Scrip- 
tures declare  in  the  plainest  terms  that  he  who  repents  is  forgiv- 
en. Any  one,  then,  who  reads  and  understands,  can  declare 
upon  the  authority  of  God,  that  if  an  individual  is  a  true  penitent, 
his  sins  are  forgiven.  This,  however,  is  not  a  power  which  sat- 
isfies such  claimants.  It  does  not  invest  the  ministry  with  any 
peculiar  authority  above  others,  and  consequently,  does  not  an- 
swer the  purpose  for  which  such  pretensions  are  made.  The 
conditional  effectiveness  thus  turns  out  on  examination  to  be 
without  a  condition,  i.  e.  a  real  and  unconditional  effectiveness. 
The  reply  is  accordingly  a  mere  evasion,  and  the  charge  stands 
unreputed. 

But  it  becomes  not  only  those  who  advance  such  claims,  but 
those  who  are  disposed  to  hearken  to  them,  to  beware. — 
They  are  so  high,  so  daring,  so  far  above  all  claims,  ordinarily 
set  up  by  men — they  are  moreover  so  opposed  to  all  proper  views 
of  Scripture,  so  derogatory  to  God,  and  so  degrading  to  man — 
that  there  must  be  guilt  in  entertaining  them  for  a  moment. — 


The  poison  is  so  violent,  that  the  slightest  quantity  is  fatal.  The 
pretensions  should  at  once  be  resisted,  and  every  good  and  true  * 
man  is  bound  to  show  their  fallacy  and  impiety. 

Finally,  while  we  deny  this  prerogative  to  any  mere  man  or 
finite  being,  we  cheerfully  acknowledge  it  as  belonging  to  Jesus. 
We  claim  it  for  him  at  the  hands  of  all  others.  The  Son  of  Man 
hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins.  High  and  sacred  as  is  this 
prerogative,  it  is  not  too  much  so  for  Him.  He  is  the  Son  of 
God — the  brightness  of  the  Father's  glory,  and  the  express  im- 
age of  his  person.  He  is  clothed  with  every  divine  perfection, 
because  possessed  of  a  divine  nature.  In  this  wonderful  person, 
then,  this  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  this  God  and  man  in  two  distinct 
natures  and  one  person,  we  see  one  able  to  receive  and  wield 
this  power.  Besides,  as  the  one  Mediator  between  God  and 
man,  he  has  purchased  by  his  obedience  unto  death,  the  right  to 
give  eternal  life  to  as  many  as  he  will.  It  is  his  righteousness 
which  makes  the  sinner  just.  It  is  his  blood  which  delivereth 
from  all  sins,  his  death  which  stands  m  the  stead  of  the  sinner. 
He  assumed  our  relation  to  the  law,  and  all  our  legal  responsi- 
bilities rests  on  him.  He  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the 
tree,  and  cancelled  the  guilt  of  every  believer. 

The  Father  has  accepted  him,  and  all  power  in  heaven  and 
earth  is  given  unto  him.  We  may  well,  therefore,  concede  to  his 
claims.  If  they  are  controverted,  he  can  easily  substantiate 
them  by  the  exhibition  of  these  very  divine  attributes  necessary 
to  the  exercise  of  the  power.  So  he  did  on  the  occasion  alluded 
to  in  our  text.  He  read  the  thoughts  of  the  heart.  "  Why  rea- 
son ye  thus  in  your  heart."  He  displayed  his  omnipotence. — 
Arise,  said  he  to  theq>alsied  man,  take  up  thy  bed  and  go  unto 
thine  house  ;  and  he  arose  and  departed  to  his  house.  By  an 
effect,  which  wTas  palpable  to  all,  he  showed  that  he  could  pro- 
duce another  of  equal  difficulty — though  not  discernible  to  oth- 
ers. His  pretensions,  therefore,  were  not  false — his  claims  were 
valid.  All  must  know  that  he  had  power  on  earth  to  forgive 
sins. 

Let  us  then,  my  friends,  as  poor  sinners,  come  to  Jesus  for 
pardon.  Let  us  receive  our  forgiveness  at  His  hands.  Those 
that  would  stand  between  us  and  him,  and  proffer  to  us  their  aid 
in  securing  forgiveness,  let  us  thrust  aside  and  refuse  their  aid. 
Let  us  know  that  while  Jesus  can  forgive,  none  other  can.  Then 
let  us  cry  with  broken  hearts  to  Him,  and  learn  from  experience 
that  Jesus  has  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins. 


N-°   v     975'6     ^93  1841-59 

y^UA^i.H         3438  94 

N.C  Pamphlets 


N.C       975.6       Z993  1841-53 

W**»t->f         >f  342394 


jHiS  VOLUME  nO  itdiHO 
OUTBIDS  M« 


